4 ms·

Once you get used to AT&T syntax, Intel's seems somewhat verbose. That said, deciphering complex addressing modes (especially for LEAs) in AT&T is pain. So each

• adr_ 14y ago
  I wouldn't call it more verbose. AT&T: sub $0x8,%rbx callq *%rax mov (%rbx),%rax Intel: sub rbx, 0x8 call rax mov rax, [rbx] Intel can be written with: mov rax, QWORD PTR [rbx] But it's redundant and assemblers don't expect it. It's only necessary in a handful of places to avoid ambiguity, as opposed to the incessant size suffixes and $/% prefixes, which make AT&T feel more verbose to me. Definitely a matter of familiarity, though.